Ever had a Caesarean-section pregnancy? This is also considered a pre-existing condition by many insurers who refuse to cover women who have ever had the procedure.

Anti-choicers boycott the Susan G. Komen's Race for the Cure (the largest breast cancer charity in the world) and call it a "menace to women," because SGK does not warn women about the (nonexistent) "abortion/breast cancer connection" and because SKG grants local Planned Parenthood clinics support for breast cancer screening for poor women.

10 comments:

I actually agree with nearly everything you point out, Maria. My wife and I (almost) faced this exact same set of circumstances when we moved to Australia for a year back in the 1990s, and there seemed to be a chance that she had become pregnant immediately prior to our departure.

Even with properly-issued visas (the Joe Wilsons of Australia would be so proud of us!), we could not qualify for our host nation's public health system. And, if we had been preganant prior to arrival, the pregancy also would not have been covered by our privately-purchased health insurance, which we were required (under the terms of our visas) to purchase.

It turns out that my wife wasn't pregnant then. But when she did become pregnant a few years later -- after we returned to the States -- our son was premature and had to spend a week in NICU. I can't even begin to imagine how we would have funded that if it had taken place during that time in Australia.

To be fair, however, I don't know what else the Australian health insurace companies could have done. All citizens there were covered by the public health plan, but it's offerings were fairly basic. Apparently, there was quite a trend for young women to enroll in private insurance to provide extra coverage during the term of their preganancies, and then drop it after the baby was born.

In fact, I could be wrong about this -- it's been nearly 15 years now -- but I think that there was actually some kind of "waiting period" in our policy for pregnancy coverage. In other words, a pregancy that began during the first few months of the policy also would not be covered by the insurace.

All this being said, aren't all of these "pre-existing" things supposed to disappear once there is a mandate for everyone to purchase coverage? I frankly have lost the plot on all the proposals out there, but I thought that this was basically built into all of them.

On the other hand mandating circumcision for all males to stop the spread of Aids upcoming report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that may recommend circumcision for newborn boys as a way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, because studies show that the procedure can reduce transmission of the disease from women to men.

RKT:'All this being said, aren't all of these "pre-existing" things supposed to disappear once there is a mandate for everyone to purchase coverage? I frankly have lost the plot on all the proposals out there, but I thought that this was basically built into all of them.'

Yes, if and when (likely years before actually being online) there is health insurance reform, I believe all the bills do not allow for rejections by insurance companies on the basis of "pre-existing" conditions. In the meantime, they still exist. Right now people are being huirt by them.

They also point out that while corporations have the rights of persons in the US, they are clearly sociopathic persons in these cases. Health insurance companies profit by denying care -- even life-saving care. When an actual person kills someone for profit they are committing a criminal act and face prison and are considered to be sociopaths. Insurance companies just give out bigger bonuses.

Without a public option, those who aren't insured will be forced to buy insurance from these companies and will be expected to -- what? -- trust that they will not find ways around the rules?

Moreover, the Senate bill allows the companies, for example, to charge seven times as much to insure someone in their 40s/50s as someone in their 20s.

If the worst of the bills pass, it will do nothing but insure even greater profits for insurance companies while forcing folks to buy (or be heavily fined) shitty insurance polices that will still have them paying high deductibles so that they may never recoup their "investment."

'On the other hand mandating circumcision for all males to stop the spread of Aids upcoming report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that may recommend circumcision for newborn boys...

How is it possible that you do not understand the difference between a "mandate" and a (possible) "recommendation"? If you did understand the difference, you'd see you have no point.